Professor advocates heroin use

[ciao_yall]

Legalization solves a lot of problems. There is no longer a lucrative and dangerous lifestyle in dealing them illegally. It is easier to seek treatment when one doesn't fear jail time. Control and labelling avoids the risk of overdose.

Not saying these things aren't dangerous, but the sex shops in town also sell happen to sell airplane glue and CO2 cartridges. I'm not sure that it's because people's dildos need fixing or the gourmets at the orgy demand real stuff on their post-coital banana splits?

Let's face it, people try to get a buzz off a lot of things.

[downer]

I know that friends who live in places where recreational use of pot is legalized tend to use it more now. They also tend to drink less. I suspect I may well do the same. I'll be interested to see statistics to see if average pot use increases with legalization.

The only time I had any opiates was in hospital for pain management and I can't say that I'm tempted to try them more.

But I am curious about MDMA. The main reason I never sought it out is that I wouldn't know how to be sure the stuff I was getting was pure.

[marshwiggle]

I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron.  I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it. 

The whole stoner stereotype is silly.  It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.

What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture.
For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.

As for the tax angle, the government already taxes all sorts of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc, so you have already lost the battle.  I'm just glad for separation of church and state.

If you remember during the Chretien government, they had to lower the taxes on tobacco significantly becuase the black market was getting too big. As I've said before, eliminating the black market and generating tax revenue are mutually exclusive; the more of one, the less of the other.

Cannabis has been legal for almost three years. So why don't we want to get high off Ottawa's supply? from someone in the cannabis industry about why the black market hasn't declined.

[dismalist]

No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.

[marshwiggle]

No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.

But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.

[dismalist]

No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.

But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.

Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.

[marshwiggle]

No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.

But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.

Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.

That would make it the exception to the rule about every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.

(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)

[dismalist]

No, the black market sets a maximum tax rate one can impose, which is the markup of the illegals. Up to that rate, there is nothing mutually exclusive.

But the black market product can be produced without environmental, health, or safety regulations, so it has much less overhead than an approved facility operating under all the restrictions of a legitimate business.

Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.

That would make it the exception to the rule about every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.

(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)

Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money. The garage examples are random occurrences, not whole, regular, industries.

[marshwiggle]

Actually, I assume that legal production cost of heroin is much lower than illegal production: No cops and judges to bribe, no hitmen to pay, no smugglers to pay, and so on.

That would make it the exception to the rule about every industry; the illegal operations out of someone's garage with unsafe operations, paying no taxes, benefits for workers, etc. make their living by offering goods or services cheaper than the regulated industry. When accidents happen and people are injured or die, they just disappear and start again somewhere else.

(For cannabis growth, there are lots of stories of farmers finding patches of weed growing in some obscure corner of their property. Illegally using someone else's property is a whole lot cheaper than buying land, paying taxes, etc. Not to mention grow-ops in empty houses using electricity stolen from neighbouring properties, etc.)

Well, the source of the higher costs for an illegal industry is the illegality. Gotta protect oneself from the law. That costs money. The garage examples are random occurrences, not whole, regular, industries.

By that logic, there should be no illegal construction, cosmetic surgery, or a host of other things. Any legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business. Illegality is less expensive because payments only need to be made when absolutely necessary; unless and until cops and/or judges notice, they don't need to be paid, etc.

[dismalist]

Any legal industry should puts its illegal shadow out of business.

Precisely: You won't find any illegal construction operation from which you can buy houses whenever you like. The examples are all small and random. Not regular, dependable delivery on a mass scale.

The overwhelming share of our economic activity is actually legal! :-)

[Caracal]

I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron.  I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it. 

The whole stoner stereotype is silly.  It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.

What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture.
For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.

That's mostly an effect of illegality I suspect. If you look at the way legal cannabis companies advertise, they don't promote that image at all. Some companies even promote their products as being less intense.

[Kron3007]

I know that friends who live in places where recreational use of pot is legalized tend to use it more now. They also tend to drink less. I suspect I may well do the same. I'll be interested to see statistics to see if average pot use increases with legalization.

The only time I had any opiates was in hospital for pain management and I can't say that I'm tempted to try them more.

But I am curious about MDMA. The main reason I never sought it out is that I wouldn't know how to be sure the stuff I was getting was pure.

Maybe.  I used it prior to legalization as well as post legalization, and my consumption has not changed at all.  Perhaps this is not the case for everyone, but I don't think most people who consumed it before legalization have changed their habits.  It is hard to get any good data on usage levels since they are all survey based, and the legal status definitely impacts people's honesty.

[Kron3007]

I consume cannabis, and do not consider myself a do-nothing, brain addled moron.  I exercise, eat well, am successful, and even have children. You would be surprised at how many high functioning "potheads" there are all around you, we just dont advertise it. 

The whole stoner stereotype is silly.  It is like believing that anyone who enjoys a glass of wine is a raging alcoholic. There are definitely people who fit the bill, but they are not the majority.

What is the significance of this coming Tuesday? I have never smoked a joint but I know about "420"? Why?
Because more than alcohol or tobacco, the marketing of cannabis is targeted around the glorification of the pothead culture.
For whatever reason, the people promoting legalization of marijuana have embraced that image. You don't see beer companies advertising keggers.

That's mostly an effect of illegality I suspect. If you look at the way legal cannabis companies advertise, they don't promote that image at all. Some companies even promote their products as being less intense.

My memory of beer commercials (when they were allowed here) was young people in bikinis by the lake having fun, very much glorifying beer culture.  So, I think you are a little off base.

As with beer, the legal pot industry in Canada cannot market at all.  What I have seen from them is not the 420 stoner bro culture at all. 

[kaysixteen]

I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day.   They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc.   My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions.   To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.

[Wahoo Redux]

I see the various arguments for pot legalization, esp coming from admitted potheads (though I am also at pains to point out that most potheads, like most drunks, cig smokers, etc., vastly overestimate 1) how good they smell 2) how underimpaired a/o addicted they are), but I am living in a place where I see the downsides of drugs and booze every day.   They ruin lives, destroy neighborhoods, etc.   My religious beliefs tell me that people should not have to live that way, and the state should ameliorate their conditions.   To a large extent, whether they like it or not, as no man is an island.

Should we reinstitute prohibition then?